Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Ethics & Morality
Is there Objective Morality?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="partinobodycular" data-source="post: 76301443" data-attributes="member: 435281"><p>You have to understand, stevevw isn't actually arguing for objective morality, he's just mistakenly categorizing it as objective morality. It's more like relative morality, although technically it doesn't fall within the category of moral relativism.</p><p></p><p>Basically the argument is this, if you have a specific goal then certain actions become good or bad relative to achieving that goal. For example, if your goal is to run a marathon then sitting on the couch all day eating chips and ice cream are bad, relative to that goal. While training, eating right, and getting plenty of sleep are good relative to that goal.</p><p></p><p>So stevevw is essentially arguing that if you can identify a goal that "all" rational people will agree to, then the actions that tend toward that goal are objectively good.</p><p></p><p>Yes, it's not the greatest argument ever, for at least a couple of reasons. One, who gets to decide what the goal is? And two, how does being good relative to a goal equate to being moral? After all, training, eating right, and getting plenty of sleep are good relative to the goal of running a marathon, but that doesn't make them moral.</p><p></p><p>I just thought that I'd jump in here and try to clarify things. I would guess that according to stevevw that's the moral thing to do, since he's so keen on truth and honesty.</p><p></p><p>Anyway, continue as you were...</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="partinobodycular, post: 76301443, member: 435281"] You have to understand, stevevw isn't actually arguing for objective morality, he's just mistakenly categorizing it as objective morality. It's more like relative morality, although technically it doesn't fall within the category of moral relativism. Basically the argument is this, if you have a specific goal then certain actions become good or bad relative to achieving that goal. For example, if your goal is to run a marathon then sitting on the couch all day eating chips and ice cream are bad, relative to that goal. While training, eating right, and getting plenty of sleep are good relative to that goal. So stevevw is essentially arguing that if you can identify a goal that "all" rational people will agree to, then the actions that tend toward that goal are objectively good. Yes, it's not the greatest argument ever, for at least a couple of reasons. One, who gets to decide what the goal is? And two, how does being good relative to a goal equate to being moral? After all, training, eating right, and getting plenty of sleep are good relative to the goal of running a marathon, but that doesn't make them moral. I just thought that I'd jump in here and try to clarify things. I would guess that according to stevevw that's the moral thing to do, since he's so keen on truth and honesty. Anyway, continue as you were... [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Ethics & Morality
Is there Objective Morality?
Top
Bottom